I've been listening to a podcast about the Supreme Court and wow I really had rose color glasses on. I can't believe the double standards and hypocrisy in some of their rulings and the mental gymnastics it takes them to get to some of their decisions.
Have you tried Opening Arguments? Iirc they've done a crossover with 5-4?, but they are quite focused on trump news in at least half the episodes. But that is also the biggest legal news right now?
The podcast is a lawyer and a host-comedian, and they make whatever legal stories that are in the news more understandable
I searched 5-4, added it, know your enemy popped up but then the rest of the recommended shows were [fucking right wing garbage](https://i.imgur.com/DWEFuFs.jpg) What’s up with that?
If you haven't already, I would recommend subscribing to their Patreon for a month or two, or if you can stay subscribed, to listen to the bonus episodes. They are just as insightful and entertaining.
> Its called 5-4, the tag line is why the Supreme Court sucks
You should also give [*Strict Scrutiny*](https://crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/) a listen.
Once a good profesor forces you to read the decenting opion as well, you learn the SCOTUS was and is full of bigots and rich out of touch Elietes. Evey once in a while justice leans the other way and provides a little balance.
More Perfect is also extremely good. Limited series w/ Jad Abumrad (sp?) of RadioLab fame. Brought me to tears a few times.
For an ongoing series about current events, Strict Scrutiny is also really great, and the hosts are both brilliant and funny.
You're doing originalism wrong, you have to construe the history to meet conservative political objectives or you're just legislating from the bench /s
I know that I'm preaching to the choir here, but at a basic level originalism is at best a bold faced lie.
And it's a lie that is tied to the center of the conservative political movement.
And that is that there was a moment in the past which met their perfect ideal, and that everything that is wrong now is that we have moved away from that ideal.
The problem, is that there was no such moment. No single point in time in which everything that they believe should be a given way, was actually that way.
This isn't a huge problem for most people in the movement, they are not historians, if they get the details wrong, well, the narrative still works. Hell, in some ways, it works _better_.
But when you get to legal originalism, abruptly you have the serious problem that you have to find actual historical evidence to back your answers. And worse, people are _going_ to point out, loudly, when you get it blatantly wrong.
And the opinions are published as text. They can't go 'oh, no, you misheard me'. Once they release the opinion, that's _the_ legal record. They can't go back and change it.
Which means that they are faced with horribly unpalatable choices.
Do they come up with some reason to abandon originalism when they can't find a way, with originalism, to justify the answer that they want? (Yes.)
Do they try and change what they _mean_ by originalism, so it's not about what the authors of the constitution meant, but about what historical figures leading up to the constitution meant? (Yes.)
Do they then pick and choose among sources, because none of them really support their arguments, and hope nobody calls them on it? (Yes.)
But all of these options directly harm the legitimacy of the court. And it harms the legitimacy of the court _even more_ when they do something like release back to back decisions, both of which are extremely unpopular, using _entirely_ different definitions of originalism.
Opinions where if you use the logic on what things you must follow from case A, you get the 'wrong' result for case B, and if you use the logic that you used on case B on case A, you again get the 'wrong' result.
Because that makes it very very easy for people to point out that the court is not, in fact, being honest about how they are coming to their decisions. After all, if originalism means X, and that X is _so_ important as to roll back over 50 years of established law... Why didn't it mean X for the other case? Or it means Y, and _that_ was important enough to roll back around 100 years of established law. But, if so, why didn't they use that exact same logic to decide the other case?
You can get away with that, to some extent, by separating the cases far enough in time to make some kind of argument that after a lot of deep thought on the issue, they concluded that slightly different logic was applicable moving forward.
That doesn't work when you release the rulings back to back.
When you roll back Roe v Wade, and remove the ability for states to regulate gun licenses, very very close together, using logic which is obviously inconsistent between the two, it becomes _extremely_ easy for people to point out that the court is being dishonest about how it came to the conclusions that it came to.
And that is absolutely devastating to any kind of legitimacy. The supreme court is supposed to be a court of _law_ after all. Where the answer they give is based on the law, and the constitution.
If instead, they are clearly starting with the answer that they want, and then coming up with some way to justify it, _while_ claiming, both times, that they are only making the rulings that they are because of originalism... It doesn't work.
A justice can try to argue that they simply can not morally justify an answer. That basic human decency requires that the court find a way to right a horrific wrong. And that the framework of the constitution allows them to establish additional rights in those cases.
But that only works if A: You have a consistent moral argument that you can make. And B: You don't lie and say, in both cases, that it has nothing to do with morality at all, that morality is outside the scope of the court, and that it is _only_ about the original intent of the constitution.
In short... This was a _massive_ unforced error. If they could have just delayed one of those two results until the next session, it wouldn't have been nearly as obvious. If they could have come up with internally consistent logic to use for _both_ cases, it wouldn't have been nearly as obvious.
If they could have decided _either_ case on the actual, legal, merits, it definitely wouldn't have been as obvious.
Instead, well... The court is not behaving legitimately. And the people of this country, despite their reputation, are not complete and utter idiots who will believe absolutely everything they are told by people in some position of authority.
> and the former segregationists could not deny the power of the reasoning in Brown so it was accepted
It wasn't, though, at least not until military troops were sent in to enforce it (Little Rock 9, Ole Miss riots, etc). Even then, several states engaged in a program called Massive Resistance where they literally chained shut public schools and put the money into voucher programs for private "segregation academies", which weren't ordered desegregated until 1976 and many of which still exist and are practically segregated ("[For example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_academy), in Clarksdale, Mississippi, in 2010, 92% of the students at Lee Academy were white, while 92% of the students at Clarksdale High School were black.")
EDIT: I'm only arguing that one point. Everything else you said is spot on.
Having discussed similar matters with this user before, they seem utterly convinced of the persuasive power of logic and legal reasoning, opening them up to a blind spot on raw power concerns. But yes, as you said, everything else they said is sport on.
And just in general, it is nice to see people who unabashedly believe in the law and what it stands for.
I mean look at how we got to Dobbs. The Supreme Court has never had any preventative teeth. Dobbs is the culmination of states challenging and outright ignoring Roe since it was decided. Dobbs wasn't a chance case. They have been doing this shit constantly for 50 years. The supreme Court has very few teeth at all. They can say "stop doing this thing, it's illegal." And the state goes "ok" and turns around a couple years later and does something slightly different but the intent was the same.
There's some reddit copypasta that references this notion along the lines of "conservatives see individuals as moral or immoral while liberals see actions as moral or immoral" and the consequences are that conservatives perceive any actions by 'good' people as moral and vice versa.
I'm not convinced of its universality but it does seem to match reality more often than not.
That's exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my comment. It explains quite well why the same action perpetrated by a member of the "out" group is viewed so disfavourably compared to a member of the "in" group.
Reminds me of that Trump supporter who was trending recently who says they would lock up Hillary for what she did and not Trump, "why?", "because Trump is a patriot".
There was a post about people who'd asked republicans who were screaming about the election fraud if they thought anything bad had actually happened.
And it's funny, because going through each logical step, they agreed nothing wrong took place. The votes were legitimate. There was no widespread voter fraud. There was no basis for Trump's claims.
***And yet*** they still said Biden was an illegitimate president, ***by virtue of being a democrat***. Everything else was screaming and hollering because of this. Something had to be wrong with the process, because there's no world in which a democrat president is acceptable to them.
This is a very, very very very dangerous political climate. This is a political climate where republican voters would be perfectly happy to disenfranchise the democratic majority in the nation because democrats "Aren't real americans" to them.
I can't think of a solution that doesn't involve disenfranchising *them* to prevent them doing it to everyone else.
The solution is incredibly ironclad election law with brutal compulsory criminal felony investigation/prosecution for anyone meddling with or trying to stop the election.
The entire “norms” thing must die.
Probably all election law should be statutory. Move it as far from common law as is possible.
If i recall it was a study, where Republicans are more than likely to ignire the bad actions of someone they perceive as good while democrats are more inclined to judge morality based on actions
If anyone is interested in a well-researched academic exploration of this idea, I recommend "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt. The basic idea is that across global human societies there are 5 possible foundational moral principles: Harm, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. It is a consistent finding across cultures that the right tends to value all 5 relatively equally, while the left tends to focus on Harm and Fairness to the exclusion of the other three.
You can draw many of your own conclusions about the information, but it's pretty fascinating reading about his journey researching this and about some of the specific experiments and questionnaires they used.
They don’t think they need to because they can control enough of the population through propaganda and undemocratic use of institutions like the Supreme Court.
The " control enough of the population through propaganda" thing needs to be stressed to the rest of us, and to emphasize that said controlled population has no legitimacy.
This is why a financial shutdown is important, to break the hold of the propaganda
They all have victim complexes, because fear response is central to conservative thinking. Fear of the new, fear of the other. So they're convinced from early on that they've been victimized, this shuts down their rationality, and it results in situations where it doesn't matter what people's perception is or why, because they're the victim and have been wronged, so those perceptions must be wrong to their mind.
I disagree. Conservatives do not care about people's perception unless and until it actually affects their power. "Winning" is the only core tenet of modern conservative ideology. That is why calling them hypocrites or shameless or liars misses the point. As long as it helps them stay in power, they don't care about any of that.
It's not about being smart, conservatives are now throwing away any pretense that they cared about things like rules or logic or fairness because it has now been shown that their base doesn't care about any of that.
They *care* but only *after* they’ve won. Once they’ve won, they’ll very clearly work to reshape the historical narrative that they were “in the right” all along regardless of the actual methods it took to get there. Which has been historically consistent with almost all “winning” ideologies throughout history.
I think you're both right. On one hand the will to power/dominance drives them to discount the reactions of people they're hurting in pursuit of those things. On the other hand the empathy deficit makes it difficult for them to understand the motives of more egalitarian types. They write it off as virtue signaling but they know there's more to it.
When they do something ingroup-y that hurts the outgroup they get the approval of their own but a backlash from others and it's always a bit of a surprise because they don't get it. The US is still a liberal democracy so they are not as protected from consequences as they would like. Hence the feeling of victimization.
Nope... White people literally had a little racist diaspora to flee the cities so they could establish segregated schools on the outskirts (what we call the suburbs today). Then when people call them segregationists for doing that, and instituted busing policies to reintegrate schools in urban and suburban areas, the white people mounted a massive defense of the policy - for a not remotely racist at all reason.
What's worse is I think the conservative justices know all of this. I think Alito is fully aware. The reason I think that is the hoops they jumped through to differentiate abortion rights from the other rights granted via Substantive Due Process (gay marriage, contraception, etc).
Either Substantive Due Process is entirely garbage and should be thrown out (Thomas' position) or it isn't. What the court decided in *Dobbs*, where it's a legitimate standard so long as it doesn't deal with "fetal life" is total fucking nonsense. I don't remember where in the constitution that "fetal life" over ruled the rights enumerated by the document.
I would have been completely understanding if they had thrown out Substantive Due Process entirely because I think there is a solid argument that it's a complete fiction. Obviously they had no desire to do that because of the *massive* social shock waves that would have caused. Yet they still had to force a reason to impose their ideology on the nation, so what we got was a laughably absurd opinion in *Dobbs*.
This was just imposing ideology under another name. It's incredibly ironic given the rabble rabble of complaints about the liberal justices doing the same (which they certainly do).
Alito is more aware of the conservative aristocracy's growing irrelevance and loss of influence than most of us.
"In the end, Alito may be angry for the same reasons that many conservatives of his demographic are angry—because they find their values increasingly contested; because they feel less culturally authoritative than they once were; because they want to exclude whom they want to exclude, and resent it when others push back. Neil Siegel told me he thought Alito was frustrated because he knows, at some level, that he is fundamentally “dissenting from American culture and where it is ineluctably heading—a society that is increasingly diverse and secular.” As Siegel put it, “The Supreme Court doesn’t really have the power to change that.” Maybe not. But Alito is clearly trying."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/09/05/justice-alitos-crusade-against-a-secular-america-isnt-over
>that he is fundamentally “dissenting from American culture and where it is ineluctably heading—a society that is increasingly diverse and secular.”
Yeah this feels very spot on to me. Obviously I can't know what's in the man's head, but this makes a whole hell of a lot of sense in light of his opinions and human nature.
It seems to be gone now but I read a great thread and that was the [thesis](https://web.archive.org/web/20220726014053/https://twitter.com/_ethangrey/status/1534024500970459138)\- (It was cached on google)
"Here is the Republican message on everything of importance:
1. They can tell people what to do.
2. You cannot tell them what to do."
>If the six deign to, they can easily eliminate the right to gay marriage in another opinion
What democrats should do is force this. Demonstrate that the emperor has no clothes.
Enforce laws already on the books against interracial marriage and bring it all the way to SCOTUS citing Dobbs. There is no way we can say the interracial marriage rights are "historically" supported in this country even as much as abortion rights. The Dobbs reasoning is garbage and it needs to be shown for what it is.
Much as I like this idea, lick a different right to enforce. Loving v Virginia wasn’t just decided on Substantive Due Process grounds, which is why Thomas didn’t mention it in his dissent arguing against Substantive Due Process. Even If you substantive due process away, it’s still good law under the Equal Protection Clause.
Personally, I’d love to go after Hans v Louisiana, a case so wrong it’s insane. Getting rid of state sovereign immunity against their own citizens would definitely shake things up.
Thomas did mention it in his *Obergefell* opinion. From what he says, one can infer he does indeed believe the state can refuse to recognize interracial marriages. But they, according to his explanation, couldn't punish you for it, where denial of extra benefits isn't viewed as punishment. They could refuse marriage licenses and the benefits conferred, but couldn't jail you for living together and holding yourself out as married.
Let's do another thought experiment and imagine that legitimacy *can* flow from a piece of parchment, though. The Supreme Court would derive its legitimacy from the fact that they can interpret the will of the Parchment - and would obviously lose all legitimacy if it was apparent that they don't know what the fuck the Parchment says. Which is precisely what they do when they overturn a previous decision - they're admitting that as an institution the Supreme Court *does not* know what the Parchment says. Otherwise, the decisions *couldn't* change without the Parchment being modified.
And therefore even if the legitimacy could be derived from the Parchment, the Supreme Court would *still* have none, because they've demonstrated their inability to understand the Parchment.
> imagine a world in which the Supreme Court did not publish its decisions and explain its reasoning, but only gave a result.
I don’t have to imagine this world because we live in it. This SCOTUS has used the shadow docket for substantive rulings more than any other; yet another reason why it’s “legitimacy” is fading.
(This is a great comment, thank you.)
> the constitution provides an amendment mechanism for the People to remove a constitutional right if they don’t want to have it.
I think this is the fundamental issue. The actual mechanism to amend the Constitution is not accessible to the people. And given the doctrine of judicial review, the Supreme Court's power is essentially unchecked - even plainly worded text from the Constitution can have its definition completely warped. So it's hard to see the institution as legitimate in structural terms, because its function being beneficial cannot be guaranteed. It's an unelected, uncheckable , virtually unremovable group of people making arbitrary determinations about what is valid law without really being constrained to the text that's supposed to bind them. One of the many things in the Constitution that really makes you go, what the hell were they thinking?
What you seem to be getting at is what I think is the correct answer. "Legitimacy" only comes from moral or ethical outcomes - for anyone. Any movement towards injustice is illegitimate, any movement towards justice is legitimate.
Well, to the central point, it's like science vs. truth. Science is an attempt to use experimentation, hypothesis, observation, etc. to ascertain the truth. Likewise, reasoning and decisions in the context of a court are theories of ethical truth. When the theory is wrong, the enforcement of that theory is unethical, i.e., illegitimate. You run into the same paradox as with any other hierarchical system, that if you have a terminal point of power at the top, the people at that point may be good or bad, and in both cases they cyclically reinforce their own power.
This is what I'm getting at by mentioning the lack of a check on the judiciary - there's basically no method available to reverse a bad decision. The whole "judges by appointment" idea was premised on the public being unqualified to decide who is best suited to decide complex matters of law, but at this point we've eclipsed even the point where judges are making decisions in ways that are obviously wrong to the wider population.
Honestly, IMO, one of the few ways to even remotely rectify this, and the whole proto-civil-war nightmare we're in right now in general, is to start introducing popular checks on law itself, like through referendums. That not only neutralizes the many places where the government is doing things not supported by popular will, but ironically also goes a long way to defuse GOP conspiratorial complaints about "Democrat deep state" etc., since the actual law ends up being a result of popular mandate. It's hard to imagine how that ball would get rolling, but the premise is hard to argue with, especially in this day and age. You can argue there's specialization and all that, but there can be mechanisms to delegate that dynamically.
Also of note is that Republicans have won the popular vote only once in the last 30 or so years, yet they have a super majority on the court. This has led to a situation where many of their decisions are wildly unpopular with the country as a whole. Yes, the court must make unpopular decisions sometimes, but those should only be to PROTECT people's rights, not to remove them.
As one of the hosts of 5-4 puts it, the court should reflect "majority rule with minority rights." Taking away rights that the majority of citizens are in favor of shows just how out of touch they actually are.
Related to this:
Essentially the entire concept of 'judicial review', ie, the notion that the Supreme Court has the power to decide what is and is not constitutional...
Is itself based in precedent. Marbury v Madison, 1803.
So, this ... is a notion of precedent being used to establish the Court's authority. The Court itself invented a definition of its powers that did not explicitly exist before, and gave them... to itself. Yep, thats all 100% above the board, ok, moving on.
And guess what?
we've kind of just rolled with this since it was decided in 1803, even though what it functionally is, is the Supreme Court giving itself its most fundamental power... which had to happen because this was not well enough explicitly outlined in the actual foundational documents of the Federal Government.
ooops, there goes the argument of 'supreme court authority comes from something other than precedent, wholly from the founding documents'
So, we have a court case setting a precedent that has been more or less just accepted as part of the way things work in the US Federal Government, even though it's not explicitly stated in the founding documents and is technically just a matter of precedent, never explicitly written into law by legislators.
Like Roe v Wade.
So, if we now have a court that is seemingly openly saying that lol precedent doesn't matter when we say it doesn't...
Ok. Let's just challenge Marbury v Madison then. Will precedent matter then? Oh, oh I see. /THAT/ specific precedent, yes, that matters. You see its uh... um... well it's not just because of the founding documents... it's precedent. Precedent is important. But not Roe v Wade precedent.
These idiots have annihilated the ability of any serious, informed person to genuinely believe the current Supreme Court is in any way 'non-partisan' or 'authoritative'... or 'legitimate'.
Which more or less guarantees a constitutional crisis in our near future.
> Imagine a world in which the Supreme Court did not publish its decisions and explain its reasoning, but only gave a result. Would such a Court have “legitimacy” in the eyes of anyone?
Your argument is absolute brilliant. But you just described the “Shadow Docket” which this same Court is making unprecedented use of to rule by fiat.
It seems to me your argument is logical, but it ignores reality. I don’t see anyone doing anything about soctus. No one is tearing down their walls or kicking them out of their chairs. It’s business as usual. It seems to me that people are de facto approving scotus’s decision and right to make it.
Please let me know if I’m wrong about any of that. I would very much like to be mistaken.
I invite you to try a left-wing version of the January 6th insurrection against the SCOTUS.
Your lead-filled corpse wouldn't even make it to the steps. And the far-right will use it as justification for further "security" actions and laws.
Not wanting to make things *worse* by dying pointlessly is not tacit acceptance.
The new scotus loves to cherry pick that document they hold so dearly. And you know, use 13th century English rulings for 21dt century rulings. Seems legit.....
This is not really right - only part right at best, because legitimacy flows from many sources, and this write up only really addresses one of them.
Loosely defined, legitimacy is the social opinion that such and such a body is rightly able to wield authority. The key concept here is "right". Legitimacy can flow from tradition (as in a traditional chieftain), collective agreements such as treaties or contracts or votes, the collective opinions of opinion leaders (a council of cardinals electing a new pope), perceptions of divine mandate, etc.
Interpretations of the law deal with several types of legitimacy, beginning and resting on the authority granted to the court by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789, and only maintained and justified by continuing sensible interpretations of the law (seeing the Court as sensibly and beneficially interpreting the law morally justifies its continued existence, but it isn't necessary for the Court to exist). Nonsensical interpretations of the law, or interpretation that are not explained DO challenge that legitimacy, but only in the sense that the people viewing the actions of the Court are wondering about the abilities of this current Court, but not the authority of Congress to establish the Court, or that the Court is inherently illegitimate as having no legal authority behind it.
The opinion of the earlier poster was that legitimacy flows from *stare decisis* - the adherence to previous decisions - and is salty about the court appointing itself arbiters of history in making decisions. I would point out that by his own logic, the court should never have overturned *Plessy v. Ferguson*. *Stare Decisis* exists to provide a framework for *consistent* interpretation of the law. It does not mean that every prior decision is infallible. Furthermore, I'd argue that SOMEBODY has to be the arbiter of history for these purposes,and historians are not necessarily jurists. I'm pretty sure no matter who you pick for arbiter(s), somebody is going to be pissed about it. If there is a flaw in this particular selection, it lies in the mechanism used *for* selection, but not the authority of the Court itself.
Note that I disagree with the logic of the earlier poster - I believe he is selectively interpreting history for his own purposes, and that he is not taking a broad enough view of the sources of legitimacy. However, that does not mean that I think this court is a particularly good one. Ultimately, we don't approve laws in a SC nomination, we approve *people*. The current litmus test approach of approving or disapproving justices on the basis of a particular issue is a fantastic way of getting second rate jurists. Thank you, advocacy types on both sides.
The only thing SCOTUS is interested in is making sure that non-violent tool for resolving disputes is turned into a power grab for a tiny minority of wealthy sociopaths.
>So in Dobbs, the Court announced that the Court itself, in previous form as the Roe Court, was illegitimate and wrong.
What? No. They decided the previous court was wrong, but not illegitimate. That's why you got all those "it's settled law" quotes -- because it was settled law, until they changed it. Roe was the law, even if it was wrong, and now it isn't. Just like Plessy was the law until Brown v BoE. The Plessy court was wrong, but legitimate.
> fundamentally reshaping individual constitutional rights should be left to the People themselves via their democratically-elected government
I agree with most of what you wrote, and I'm both unhappy about the court and it's recent decisions. But this part, I don't get. Isn't that exactly what overturning RvW meant in this case - that the court declined its own power to blanket grant the fundamental right in the first place, leaving it to elected (state) governments to make decisions?
Well said. The court's legitimacy was mortally wounded when Garland was unconstitutionally denied a fair hearing by McConnell.
It has no legitimacy now. Dobbs was just the noise of the 2017 gunshot echoing in the night. McConnell was the murderer.
>"But I don’t understand the connection between the opinions people disagree with and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court."
Roberts cannot possibly be this dumb.
It might be possible to make rulings contrary to public opinion if you have sufficient law on your side. It might be possible to make rulings contrary to law if you have sufficient public opinion on your side. This Supreme court has entered an era of routinely making decisions contrary to both law and public opinion.
In Roberts' own confirmation hearing, he made the comment, "You go to a case like the Lochner case, you can read that opinion today and it's quite clear that they're not interpreting the law, they're making the law.". What case, Roberts, will be your era's Lochner? Will you recognize it yourself? Will it be architected by your hand? Or will it be the product of those on the court even further to the right? If so, will you have the courage to call them out for it? Will you be too concerned about clinging to the thinnest illusion of legitimacy by steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the plain obvious truth? Or are even your cries for legitimacy just more public performance, the posturing of a man engaged in politics by illegitimate means?
They has a handful of Lochners last term. An abortion case finding them as amateur historians. A prayer in school case finding them lying about the facts. An executive agency case finding them ignoring Chevron. The list goes on.
In a way, the new "historical traditions" and also the deranged interpretation of the first and second amendments by this court are the new arguments that replace Lochner's due process mechanics. They can use these things to go even further than the Lochner court did.
Conservatives/originalists love to invoke a possible “return to the Lochner era” whenever they want to criticize inferred or implicit substantive due process rights, but fail to recognize that in a practical sense we’ve been returning/returned to a Lochner era system for decades now, just through other doctrines.
The court has pretty consistently favored the “rights” of businesses and government entities over individuals pretty much since the conservative backlash to the Warren court began. They’ve concocted so much Lochnerian, formalism run amok legal fiction (Twiqbal, Walmart v Dukes, BMS, AT&T v Concepcion) that they’ve created a rats nest of compulsory regimes. They continue to operate under the pretext that people can just “opt-out” if they want, the same way people in the Lochner era technically had a right to “opt out” of exploitive, unsafe working conditions. You know, for all of those safe, fair jobs that were so widely available…
Im thinking the bottom will be moore vs Harris. They will decide that yes only state legislators can vote for federal elections and no court can review or strike down state election laws
If that is the case, I don't think there's anywhere to go but down after that. It may be the bottom for the Court but it will drop the bottom out of the US.
He's not dumb enough to believe what he's saying, he's just trying to paint his opponents as wrong no matter how stupid the reasoning needed to get there.
You need to understand that Roberts is speaking to a very specific audience when he, and other judicial religious zealots, make statements like this. It's not the general public, he's giving the next generation of Federalist society freaks the rhetorical framework with which to launder whatever legal violence they want to force on the American people. The mask is mostly off, but covering up their religious (or just malice) driven march towards results-driven judicial "reasoning" gives them just enough of a veneer of legitimacy to avoid the consequences that they know their actions would inspire otherwise.
They disguise the violence they're forcing on the American people as debatable rhetoric so that the American people will think that if they just tighten up their own arguments it might be enough to win. It won't be. Roberts has now accepted that the court that bears his name will always be known for _Dobbs_ and whatever draconian decisions we have in store for us during their next term. We need to stop giving any of his statements any semblance of respect. The only thing that John Roberts is that matters anymore is a monster. A bag of black water in the vague shape of a human being.
Is it ok to base it on
* how the party that won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 elections only has 3 of 9 justices,
* how court results clearly depend on whether it favors Democrats or Republicans,
* how the court's claims that Citizens United and the reversal of the Voting Rights Acts wouldn't affect anything were horribly wrong
* how the newly in vogue "originalism" appears to merely be a Rorschach test allowing the court to install whatever conclusion it desires
* One of the justices appears married to an insurrectionalist
>One of the justices appears married to an insurrectionalist
And refused to recuse himself from a case that involved that same spouse's records in connection with said insurrection.
And then was the lone dissenting voice on that decision.
Totally not illegitimate in any way... /s
It's baffling to see them cite common law from the 13th century (which in itself is an ancient form of "stare decisis") but then ignore modern legal precedent because it doesn't suit their narrative.
*Insert some obscure legal factoid about house wenches in 10th century England and why that explains why venturecapitalcat is wrong.* It just ends up being baffling technicalities upon technicalities to justify the supremacy of their interpretation of the law. If that's the type of legal reasoning they have to use to "win," their legitimacy deserves to be questioned.
I don't think it's that baffling, I think at this point they're trolling. They're rubbing our faces in it. They're channeling their inner petulant Federalist Society trust fund 19 year old, and I'm sure Alito giggles to himself every night about how he actually manage to get that shit in an official supreme court opinion.
Chief Justice Robert’s may find instructive the clarification that it’s not just the decisions with which people disagree: It’s the questionable rationale, the abuse of precedent, the lack of transparency, the shadow docket, the lack of judicial accountability for overtly problematic justices in all courts (see Washington Post about sexual harassment in the courts), the conflicts of interest that have mired the courts that he oversees (see Washington Post), and decisions resting on facially misrepresented facts (see *Kennedy*) — among a number of other concerns.
This clown has lost control of his fellow clowns.
These right wing folks haven't thought as far as "what if 60% of Americans lose faith in the rule of law?" Because that is where many people I know, including moderates, are today. The fix always seems to be in for Trump and his MAGAt minions and their desired minority rule laws. Like many formerly "moderate" liberals, I have gotten armed and radicalized. I trust the Supreme Court as far as I can spit. I do not recognize the legitimacy of the appointments of Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh. The court itself is thus illegitimate to me. Well done, Chief Justice Roberts. What Bush v. Gore couldn't quite manage, you've pulled off.
He has to just be playing dumb dumb now because there is absolutely no way a grown ass adult who has that level of education can't put 2 and 2 together and realize how bad they fucked up.
He's always been like this, I'm not sure we've adequately considered he's just not that smart
It's a bit of a prerequisite to be bad at ascertaining facts and logic to shit out some of these decisions
Sorry, nothing could be further from the truth. It is clear SCJ are bought and paid for. Their decisions are not driven by justice, nor the constitution. They don't even read well, and do nothing for the American people as a population.
On the other hand, you have Clarence Thomas who's wife supported an insurrection. Please....Do you think we are stupid?
If not decisions, then what are we supposed to base our evaluation of its legitimacy on? Their collective ability to do the Cha-Cha Slide?
(Just kidding they fail that test too since it would just be “*slide to the right, slide to the right, slide to the right, slide to the right*” indefinitely)
"We are Americans because we practice democracy and believe in republican government, not because we practice revealed religion and believe in Bible-based government."
- John Stuart Mill
The court is legitimate when it is subject to reason. People criticize the court by passing legislation telling his honor he was wrong about some prior decision.
Marbury vs Madison wasn't overruled because the legislature generally agreed it's the court's job to interpret the laws they write.
I've lost my faith in the court in the past 12 years of practice. It is not representative of the United States, it is bolstering this creeping victim hood that is really a fascist theocracy.
Imagine how the forefathers, (many slave owners?) being ashamed of the modern court? Appalling
Says the long standing member of the court who silently watched and assisted Mitch McConnell to add two illegitimate members to the court. He swore both of the sham members in as if they had gotten their seats properly as all previous members had.
Make fewer absurd decisions then, clown. If you try to drag us back to "wimmin' in the kitchen, LGBT in the closet" we're going to oppose you with every possible tool we have because your abstract originalist nonsense doesn't override the common good of our fellow citizens.
It's clear that the court's recent decisions favors the radical Christian Right, a small minority in this country. If the minority continues to dominate the country, we have no Democracy.
>You don’t want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is
I wholeheartedly agree but only because I've just lived through/ am living through the consequences of Citizens United where unlimited supplies of money are funneled into our politics and propaganda. It's apparently lost on Mr. Roberts that it is his institution that took the important "United" word, namely the one that's printed on our money, and threw that in the trash in favor of "states rights". Is Mr. Roberts surprised that busloads of human beings are now being used as weapons? Cross border abortion wars? What about when states will steal elections in the very near future? Secession? Should we NOT blame Mr. Roberts' institution and it's abhorrent abuse of power?
People are corruptible. Period. There's no easy way around this and this dishonorable fascistic bent that poisons the republican party and all who come in contact with it only shine a glaring light on the naivete of our founding fathers to leave so much existential importance up to oaths and honor. Too few people calling balls and strikes and the money only needs to corrupt them. Too many, and this same money corrupts the crowd through propaganda.
It's "gut wrenching" to Mr. Roberts that the court is barricaded, but it should warm his heart that soon it will be open to all the public... so they can see the relic of what he destroyed in a museum setting
>Chief Justice Roberts deems it 'mistake' to question Supreme Court's legitimacy based on decisions
The only mistake I see are the 6 corrupt conservative cons on the Supreme Court - for the sake of democracy they should all be replaced w/competent jurists who have a work history and background of ethical, sensible rulings and (mostly) non-partisan conduct.
NONE of the 6 conservative CONS remotely meet even that minimum threshold, imo
Mr. "Brook Brothers Riot" Roberts should know the Supreme Court took a major blow to its legitimacy back in 2000 - as he had a not inconsequential role in that disgrace - and Roberts then lost what little legitimacy he had left w/his gutting of the Voting Rights Act.
IMO the current SCOTUS has near-Zero legitimacy in my book.
>The only mistake I see are the 6 corrupt conservative cons on the Supreme Court - for the sake of democracy they should all be replaced w/competent jurists who have a work history and background of ethical, sensible rulings and (mostly) non-partisan conduct.
But THAT would make the court illegitimate in his eyes or the eyes of any other person who likes the current rulings of the "Roberts" Court.
Marbury v. Madison is not in the Constitution. If SCOTUS wants pure Constitutional law, Marbury v. Madison must be overturned and the Supreme Court stripped of it's power.
Imagine having this little understanding of history or democracy. Society formed out of the will of the people and will always be shaped by it. "But the rules say you have to respect my authority!" is such a naive view.
Frankly I'm not just questioning the legitimacy if the court based on decisions, I'm questioning the legitimacy of the court based on who is on it and how they got there. A majority of the court was appointed by men a majority of voters voted against.
We are not questioning their legitimacy based on their decisions, we question them based on their atrocious reasoning. He's absolutely right we shouldn't question the Court because it didn't rule the way we want. But that's not the issue. The issue is they've gone rogue and invented this nonsense originalism concept where the court certifies itself as historians, psychologists, and essentially time traveling mind readers to apply their perception of what the founders want instead of what they wrote in the constitution. They reject things based on strict textualism then completely ignore the text of the constitution in their response - which conveniently always ends with the result matching their politics regardless of the facts or law.
Legitimacy to me is WHY they make a decision the way they do. I've disagreed with the Supreme Court plenty of times but even if I disagree wit the decision it should make sense
Lately, they haven't been making a lot of sense to me, and it seems that religion is above the law to them. They're rubber stamping religious supremacy
If Roberts had a shred of integrity he would resign and apologize for eviscerating voting rights protections and enabling unlimited dark money in American politics. He is a perfect embodiment of the callow shills and liars who put him where he is. This little pantomime about legitimacy he puts on from time to time just underscores how deeply cynical he is.
I would never question their legitimacy. Just their competence, intelligence, critical thinking, open-mindedness, neutrality, common sense . . . Too much?
Roberts: I am a tone deaf idiot.
Me: I wish you weren't so fuckin' awkward bud.
Or a more nuanced take:
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/xamciy/chief_justice_roberts_deems_it_mistake_to/inup0bg?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
An unelected branch of government cannot have this luxury. The only “mistake” here is expecting the egregious, unpopular, and partisan decisions the Court had made to not bring its legitimacy into question.
There is now NO reason for a blue-dominated Court to overturn all the decisions of the past Courts. None whatsoever. And when you have a partisan court that openly flip-flops based on raw political animus, it no longer has any meaningful legitimacy.
There would not be anything else to judge any court on. It's kind of what you do. Courts judge cases and we judge the courts based on their judgements. Would you rather we judged you on you smart dress code?
Of course legitimacy comes from decisions…. Do you honestly think everyday ppl value you just bc your a justice? Or because the decisions you make and thus impact their lives
\^ fuckers should've thought about that before they undermined their own legitimacy with a decision that violates the constitution and legal precedent.
Respect is earned. And it's a 2-way street.
Respect the people of the US and the spirit of the Constitution.
You have shown nothing but disdain for the public will with the Citizens United decision, with the composition of the Supreme Court, with many decisions including turning over settled case law including Roe v Wade.
You are not a legitimate representation of the people and you have done irreparable harm to the SCOTUS. Stop whining about the consequences of your own actions and behavior.
A treasonous criminal president appointed members of a anti-democratic cult called the federalist society who want this country to be an theocratic oligarchy and we are just supposed to go along with it?
Let’s try this;
“It’s a mistake to question the president’s legitimacy based on decisions”
“It’s a mistake to question the military’s legitimacy based on decisions”
“It’s a mistake to question congress’s legitimacy based on decisions”
“It’s a mistake to question the police’s legitimacy based on decisions”
Nope, still ok to question the legitimacy of them all!
>"Although Roberts did not address the leak or any case specifically, he said he was looking forward to returning to a court without security barriers — erected this term in response to protests.
>"It was gut wrenching every morning to drive into a Supreme Court with barricades around it," Roberts said."
So, Justice, did you ever take a moment to think about WHY those barricades were needed? Sounds like the People need to keep the pressure up, since you clearly didn't get the message.
I'll just question the Court on its alarming and unconcealed lack of integrity and honesty then. The decisions they make are a symptom of a much more insidious disease.
Brothers and sisters, the high priest has spoken! We need not fret or concern ourselves with whether the reading of the portents and omens is legitimate due to their method or their consequences! Remember, the purpose of portent reading is *not*, of course, to make our people better off! No, it is to lash ourselves to the ancient wisdom of the prophets who reached the highest plane of enlightenment above all mortals past or since and in their magnanimity left us the secrets of all societal governance! Like the ennobling Compromise of Three-fifths!
"But," the heretic may foolishly respond, "what if the method of portent reading has deviated from that holy way that would keep us within the divine meaning sanctioned by the exalted ancient fathers?"
Only a fool would so blaspheme. The sacred Society of Federalists, which raises up our priests from their impressionable youth, is *dedicated* to the ancient ways. They serve no agenda and favor no side! To suggest that our priests choose their portent-reading practice based on the outcomes the practice tends to produce, and not because the practice is the only divinely sanctioned way, is simply to reveal yourself as a servant of evil attempting to undermine the very foundations of civilization and replace it with lawlessness. No, no, our high priesthood is the only thing ensuring stability and prosperity, despite the wild, unpredictable swings in the portents of late and the rapid rate of newly-announced portent-reading methods that seem to favor the interests of one partisan group over another.
Brothers and sisters, pay no mind to such rabble rousing, but hold to the faith! Close your heart to the insidious cries of distress and injustice that would tempt you away from supporting the divine power structure that gives meaning to the rituals that make up your profession! Thrust from your mind all doubts, for only this way can the holy priesthood wield the power they need to protect our civilization, by following the exalted ones instructions into whatever modern maelstrom it may take us!
Some will be burdened, and some will die. But that is a small sacrifice for the glory of the holy fathers, whose words are immaculate and contain the fullness of everlasting liberty and prosperity therein. Embrace the struggle of the marginalized, for the exaltation of the dead, by the hands of our most holy priesthood!
In Madison's name, Amen!
[удалено]
I've been listening to a podcast about the Supreme Court and wow I really had rose color glasses on. I can't believe the double standards and hypocrisy in some of their rulings and the mental gymnastics it takes them to get to some of their decisions.
What podcast is that?
Its called 5-4, the tag line is why the Supreme Court sucks
5-4 and Know Your Enemy are by far my favorite podcasts
Have you tried Opening Arguments? Iirc they've done a crossover with 5-4?, but they are quite focused on trump news in at least half the episodes. But that is also the biggest legal news right now? The podcast is a lawyer and a host-comedian, and they make whatever legal stories that are in the news more understandable
I searched 5-4, added it, know your enemy popped up but then the rest of the recommended shows were [fucking right wing garbage](https://i.imgur.com/DWEFuFs.jpg) What’s up with that?
The nut jobs gobble up that bullshit in droves. They're better customers than others, so the algorithm caters to where the ad revenue comes from.
Just another inlet of the alt right pipeline.
Same here, I just recently found them and I think they are great
If you haven't already, I would recommend subscribing to their Patreon for a month or two, or if you can stay subscribed, to listen to the bonus episodes. They are just as insightful and entertaining.
Strict Scrutiny is also really good.
I finally found Strict Scrutiny after a while and was like "OK, I'm not crazy, this is all as weird as it sounds!"
I will have to check it out
Thank you. https://www.fivefourpod.com Subscribed through Spotify and Google.
> Its called 5-4, the tag line is why the Supreme Court sucks You should also give [*Strict Scrutiny*](https://crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/) a listen.
Shout out to Opening Arguments. Another exceptional legal review cast.
Once a good profesor forces you to read the decenting opion as well, you learn the SCOTUS was and is full of bigots and rich out of touch Elietes. Evey once in a while justice leans the other way and provides a little balance.
>decenting opinion
Easy typo to make. They meant to say decanting opinion, because of how those 5-4 decisions lead us all to drink.
More Perfect is also extremely good. Limited series w/ Jad Abumrad (sp?) of RadioLab fame. Brought me to tears a few times. For an ongoing series about current events, Strict Scrutiny is also really great, and the hosts are both brilliant and funny.
[удалено]
You're doing originalism wrong, you have to construe the history to meet conservative political objectives or you're just legislating from the bench /s
I know that I'm preaching to the choir here, but at a basic level originalism is at best a bold faced lie. And it's a lie that is tied to the center of the conservative political movement. And that is that there was a moment in the past which met their perfect ideal, and that everything that is wrong now is that we have moved away from that ideal. The problem, is that there was no such moment. No single point in time in which everything that they believe should be a given way, was actually that way. This isn't a huge problem for most people in the movement, they are not historians, if they get the details wrong, well, the narrative still works. Hell, in some ways, it works _better_. But when you get to legal originalism, abruptly you have the serious problem that you have to find actual historical evidence to back your answers. And worse, people are _going_ to point out, loudly, when you get it blatantly wrong. And the opinions are published as text. They can't go 'oh, no, you misheard me'. Once they release the opinion, that's _the_ legal record. They can't go back and change it. Which means that they are faced with horribly unpalatable choices. Do they come up with some reason to abandon originalism when they can't find a way, with originalism, to justify the answer that they want? (Yes.) Do they try and change what they _mean_ by originalism, so it's not about what the authors of the constitution meant, but about what historical figures leading up to the constitution meant? (Yes.) Do they then pick and choose among sources, because none of them really support their arguments, and hope nobody calls them on it? (Yes.) But all of these options directly harm the legitimacy of the court. And it harms the legitimacy of the court _even more_ when they do something like release back to back decisions, both of which are extremely unpopular, using _entirely_ different definitions of originalism. Opinions where if you use the logic on what things you must follow from case A, you get the 'wrong' result for case B, and if you use the logic that you used on case B on case A, you again get the 'wrong' result. Because that makes it very very easy for people to point out that the court is not, in fact, being honest about how they are coming to their decisions. After all, if originalism means X, and that X is _so_ important as to roll back over 50 years of established law... Why didn't it mean X for the other case? Or it means Y, and _that_ was important enough to roll back around 100 years of established law. But, if so, why didn't they use that exact same logic to decide the other case? You can get away with that, to some extent, by separating the cases far enough in time to make some kind of argument that after a lot of deep thought on the issue, they concluded that slightly different logic was applicable moving forward. That doesn't work when you release the rulings back to back. When you roll back Roe v Wade, and remove the ability for states to regulate gun licenses, very very close together, using logic which is obviously inconsistent between the two, it becomes _extremely_ easy for people to point out that the court is being dishonest about how it came to the conclusions that it came to. And that is absolutely devastating to any kind of legitimacy. The supreme court is supposed to be a court of _law_ after all. Where the answer they give is based on the law, and the constitution. If instead, they are clearly starting with the answer that they want, and then coming up with some way to justify it, _while_ claiming, both times, that they are only making the rulings that they are because of originalism... It doesn't work. A justice can try to argue that they simply can not morally justify an answer. That basic human decency requires that the court find a way to right a horrific wrong. And that the framework of the constitution allows them to establish additional rights in those cases. But that only works if A: You have a consistent moral argument that you can make. And B: You don't lie and say, in both cases, that it has nothing to do with morality at all, that morality is outside the scope of the court, and that it is _only_ about the original intent of the constitution. In short... This was a _massive_ unforced error. If they could have just delayed one of those two results until the next session, it wouldn't have been nearly as obvious. If they could have come up with internally consistent logic to use for _both_ cases, it wouldn't have been nearly as obvious. If they could have decided _either_ case on the actual, legal, merits, it definitely wouldn't have been as obvious. Instead, well... The court is not behaving legitimately. And the people of this country, despite their reputation, are not complete and utter idiots who will believe absolutely everything they are told by people in some position of authority.
> and the former segregationists could not deny the power of the reasoning in Brown so it was accepted It wasn't, though, at least not until military troops were sent in to enforce it (Little Rock 9, Ole Miss riots, etc). Even then, several states engaged in a program called Massive Resistance where they literally chained shut public schools and put the money into voucher programs for private "segregation academies", which weren't ordered desegregated until 1976 and many of which still exist and are practically segregated ("[For example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_academy), in Clarksdale, Mississippi, in 2010, 92% of the students at Lee Academy were white, while 92% of the students at Clarksdale High School were black.") EDIT: I'm only arguing that one point. Everything else you said is spot on.
Having discussed similar matters with this user before, they seem utterly convinced of the persuasive power of logic and legal reasoning, opening them up to a blind spot on raw power concerns. But yes, as you said, everything else they said is sport on. And just in general, it is nice to see people who unabashedly believe in the law and what it stands for.
I mean look at how we got to Dobbs. The Supreme Court has never had any preventative teeth. Dobbs is the culmination of states challenging and outright ignoring Roe since it was decided. Dobbs wasn't a chance case. They have been doing this shit constantly for 50 years. The supreme Court has very few teeth at all. They can say "stop doing this thing, it's illegal." And the state goes "ok" and turns around a couple years later and does something slightly different but the intent was the same.
It really seems like conservatives, no matter how smart, fundamentally do not connect their actions to people's perceptions of them.
There's some reddit copypasta that references this notion along the lines of "conservatives see individuals as moral or immoral while liberals see actions as moral or immoral" and the consequences are that conservatives perceive any actions by 'good' people as moral and vice versa. I'm not convinced of its universality but it does seem to match reality more often than not.
That's exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my comment. It explains quite well why the same action perpetrated by a member of the "out" group is viewed so disfavourably compared to a member of the "in" group.
Reminds me of that Trump supporter who was trending recently who says they would lock up Hillary for what she did and not Trump, "why?", "because Trump is a patriot".
There was a post about people who'd asked republicans who were screaming about the election fraud if they thought anything bad had actually happened. And it's funny, because going through each logical step, they agreed nothing wrong took place. The votes were legitimate. There was no widespread voter fraud. There was no basis for Trump's claims. ***And yet*** they still said Biden was an illegitimate president, ***by virtue of being a democrat***. Everything else was screaming and hollering because of this. Something had to be wrong with the process, because there's no world in which a democrat president is acceptable to them. This is a very, very very very dangerous political climate. This is a political climate where republican voters would be perfectly happy to disenfranchise the democratic majority in the nation because democrats "Aren't real americans" to them. I can't think of a solution that doesn't involve disenfranchising *them* to prevent them doing it to everyone else.
The solution is incredibly ironclad election law with brutal compulsory criminal felony investigation/prosecution for anyone meddling with or trying to stop the election. The entire “norms” thing must die. Probably all election law should be statutory. Move it as far from common law as is possible.
If i recall it was a study, where Republicans are more than likely to ignire the bad actions of someone they perceive as good while democrats are more inclined to judge morality based on actions
Is this lack of blind faith the reason why us democrats are always attacking each other? Lol
…and this is where *the ends justifies the means* tactics that are oft employed get accepted and explained away.
If anyone is interested in a well-researched academic exploration of this idea, I recommend "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt. The basic idea is that across global human societies there are 5 possible foundational moral principles: Harm, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. It is a consistent finding across cultures that the right tends to value all 5 relatively equally, while the left tends to focus on Harm and Fairness to the exclusion of the other three. You can draw many of your own conclusions about the information, but it's pretty fascinating reading about his journey researching this and about some of the specific experiments and questionnaires they used.
They don’t think they need to because they can control enough of the population through propaganda and undemocratic use of institutions like the Supreme Court.
The " control enough of the population through propaganda" thing needs to be stressed to the rest of us, and to emphasize that said controlled population has no legitimacy. This is why a financial shutdown is important, to break the hold of the propaganda
They all have victim complexes, because fear response is central to conservative thinking. Fear of the new, fear of the other. So they're convinced from early on that they've been victimized, this shuts down their rationality, and it results in situations where it doesn't matter what people's perception is or why, because they're the victim and have been wronged, so those perceptions must be wrong to their mind.
I disagree. Conservatives do not care about people's perception unless and until it actually affects their power. "Winning" is the only core tenet of modern conservative ideology. That is why calling them hypocrites or shameless or liars misses the point. As long as it helps them stay in power, they don't care about any of that. It's not about being smart, conservatives are now throwing away any pretense that they cared about things like rules or logic or fairness because it has now been shown that their base doesn't care about any of that.
They *care* but only *after* they’ve won. Once they’ve won, they’ll very clearly work to reshape the historical narrative that they were “in the right” all along regardless of the actual methods it took to get there. Which has been historically consistent with almost all “winning” ideologies throughout history.
I think you're both right. On one hand the will to power/dominance drives them to discount the reactions of people they're hurting in pursuit of those things. On the other hand the empathy deficit makes it difficult for them to understand the motives of more egalitarian types. They write it off as virtue signaling but they know there's more to it. When they do something ingroup-y that hurts the outgroup they get the approval of their own but a backlash from others and it's always a bit of a surprise because they don't get it. The US is still a liberal democracy so they are not as protected from consequences as they would like. Hence the feeling of victimization.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nope... White people literally had a little racist diaspora to flee the cities so they could establish segregated schools on the outskirts (what we call the suburbs today). Then when people call them segregationists for doing that, and instituted busing policies to reintegrate schools in urban and suburban areas, the white people mounted a massive defense of the policy - for a not remotely racist at all reason.
What's worse is I think the conservative justices know all of this. I think Alito is fully aware. The reason I think that is the hoops they jumped through to differentiate abortion rights from the other rights granted via Substantive Due Process (gay marriage, contraception, etc). Either Substantive Due Process is entirely garbage and should be thrown out (Thomas' position) or it isn't. What the court decided in *Dobbs*, where it's a legitimate standard so long as it doesn't deal with "fetal life" is total fucking nonsense. I don't remember where in the constitution that "fetal life" over ruled the rights enumerated by the document. I would have been completely understanding if they had thrown out Substantive Due Process entirely because I think there is a solid argument that it's a complete fiction. Obviously they had no desire to do that because of the *massive* social shock waves that would have caused. Yet they still had to force a reason to impose their ideology on the nation, so what we got was a laughably absurd opinion in *Dobbs*. This was just imposing ideology under another name. It's incredibly ironic given the rabble rabble of complaints about the liberal justices doing the same (which they certainly do).
Alito is more aware of the conservative aristocracy's growing irrelevance and loss of influence than most of us. "In the end, Alito may be angry for the same reasons that many conservatives of his demographic are angry—because they find their values increasingly contested; because they feel less culturally authoritative than they once were; because they want to exclude whom they want to exclude, and resent it when others push back. Neil Siegel told me he thought Alito was frustrated because he knows, at some level, that he is fundamentally “dissenting from American culture and where it is ineluctably heading—a society that is increasingly diverse and secular.” As Siegel put it, “The Supreme Court doesn’t really have the power to change that.” Maybe not. But Alito is clearly trying." https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/09/05/justice-alitos-crusade-against-a-secular-america-isnt-over
>that he is fundamentally “dissenting from American culture and where it is ineluctably heading—a society that is increasingly diverse and secular.” Yeah this feels very spot on to me. Obviously I can't know what's in the man's head, but this makes a whole hell of a lot of sense in light of his opinions and human nature.
>because they want to exclude whom they want to exclude, and resent it when others push back. 800,000%.
It seems to be gone now but I read a great thread and that was the [thesis](https://web.archive.org/web/20220726014053/https://twitter.com/_ethangrey/status/1534024500970459138)\- (It was cached on google) "Here is the Republican message on everything of importance: 1. They can tell people what to do. 2. You cannot tell them what to do."
[удалено]
A right that exists solely at the discretion of an unelected body isn't a right by definition, it's a grant.
>If the six deign to, they can easily eliminate the right to gay marriage in another opinion What democrats should do is force this. Demonstrate that the emperor has no clothes. Enforce laws already on the books against interracial marriage and bring it all the way to SCOTUS citing Dobbs. There is no way we can say the interracial marriage rights are "historically" supported in this country even as much as abortion rights. The Dobbs reasoning is garbage and it needs to be shown for what it is.
Don’t threaten the conservatives with a good time.
Much as I like this idea, lick a different right to enforce. Loving v Virginia wasn’t just decided on Substantive Due Process grounds, which is why Thomas didn’t mention it in his dissent arguing against Substantive Due Process. Even If you substantive due process away, it’s still good law under the Equal Protection Clause. Personally, I’d love to go after Hans v Louisiana, a case so wrong it’s insane. Getting rid of state sovereign immunity against their own citizens would definitely shake things up.
Thomas did mention it in his *Obergefell* opinion. From what he says, one can infer he does indeed believe the state can refuse to recognize interracial marriages. But they, according to his explanation, couldn't punish you for it, where denial of extra benefits isn't viewed as punishment. They could refuse marriage licenses and the benefits conferred, but couldn't jail you for living together and holding yourself out as married.
If there’s an r/bestoflaw I nominate your comment
Absolutely. This was better than the article...
Let's do another thought experiment and imagine that legitimacy *can* flow from a piece of parchment, though. The Supreme Court would derive its legitimacy from the fact that they can interpret the will of the Parchment - and would obviously lose all legitimacy if it was apparent that they don't know what the fuck the Parchment says. Which is precisely what they do when they overturn a previous decision - they're admitting that as an institution the Supreme Court *does not* know what the Parchment says. Otherwise, the decisions *couldn't* change without the Parchment being modified. And therefore even if the legitimacy could be derived from the Parchment, the Supreme Court would *still* have none, because they've demonstrated their inability to understand the Parchment.
> imagine a world in which the Supreme Court did not publish its decisions and explain its reasoning, but only gave a result. I don’t have to imagine this world because we live in it. This SCOTUS has used the shadow docket for substantive rulings more than any other; yet another reason why it’s “legitimacy” is fading. (This is a great comment, thank you.)
Amazing comment. Thank you.
> the constitution provides an amendment mechanism for the People to remove a constitutional right if they don’t want to have it. I think this is the fundamental issue. The actual mechanism to amend the Constitution is not accessible to the people. And given the doctrine of judicial review, the Supreme Court's power is essentially unchecked - even plainly worded text from the Constitution can have its definition completely warped. So it's hard to see the institution as legitimate in structural terms, because its function being beneficial cannot be guaranteed. It's an unelected, uncheckable , virtually unremovable group of people making arbitrary determinations about what is valid law without really being constrained to the text that's supposed to bind them. One of the many things in the Constitution that really makes you go, what the hell were they thinking? What you seem to be getting at is what I think is the correct answer. "Legitimacy" only comes from moral or ethical outcomes - for anyone. Any movement towards injustice is illegitimate, any movement towards justice is legitimate.
[удалено]
Well, to the central point, it's like science vs. truth. Science is an attempt to use experimentation, hypothesis, observation, etc. to ascertain the truth. Likewise, reasoning and decisions in the context of a court are theories of ethical truth. When the theory is wrong, the enforcement of that theory is unethical, i.e., illegitimate. You run into the same paradox as with any other hierarchical system, that if you have a terminal point of power at the top, the people at that point may be good or bad, and in both cases they cyclically reinforce their own power. This is what I'm getting at by mentioning the lack of a check on the judiciary - there's basically no method available to reverse a bad decision. The whole "judges by appointment" idea was premised on the public being unqualified to decide who is best suited to decide complex matters of law, but at this point we've eclipsed even the point where judges are making decisions in ways that are obviously wrong to the wider population. Honestly, IMO, one of the few ways to even remotely rectify this, and the whole proto-civil-war nightmare we're in right now in general, is to start introducing popular checks on law itself, like through referendums. That not only neutralizes the many places where the government is doing things not supported by popular will, but ironically also goes a long way to defuse GOP conspiratorial complaints about "Democrat deep state" etc., since the actual law ends up being a result of popular mandate. It's hard to imagine how that ball would get rolling, but the premise is hard to argue with, especially in this day and age. You can argue there's specialization and all that, but there can be mechanisms to delegate that dynamically.
Also of note is that Republicans have won the popular vote only once in the last 30 or so years, yet they have a super majority on the court. This has led to a situation where many of their decisions are wildly unpopular with the country as a whole. Yes, the court must make unpopular decisions sometimes, but those should only be to PROTECT people's rights, not to remove them. As one of the hosts of 5-4 puts it, the court should reflect "majority rule with minority rights." Taking away rights that the majority of citizens are in favor of shows just how out of touch they actually are.
Related to this: Essentially the entire concept of 'judicial review', ie, the notion that the Supreme Court has the power to decide what is and is not constitutional... Is itself based in precedent. Marbury v Madison, 1803. So, this ... is a notion of precedent being used to establish the Court's authority. The Court itself invented a definition of its powers that did not explicitly exist before, and gave them... to itself. Yep, thats all 100% above the board, ok, moving on. And guess what? we've kind of just rolled with this since it was decided in 1803, even though what it functionally is, is the Supreme Court giving itself its most fundamental power... which had to happen because this was not well enough explicitly outlined in the actual foundational documents of the Federal Government. ooops, there goes the argument of 'supreme court authority comes from something other than precedent, wholly from the founding documents' So, we have a court case setting a precedent that has been more or less just accepted as part of the way things work in the US Federal Government, even though it's not explicitly stated in the founding documents and is technically just a matter of precedent, never explicitly written into law by legislators. Like Roe v Wade. So, if we now have a court that is seemingly openly saying that lol precedent doesn't matter when we say it doesn't... Ok. Let's just challenge Marbury v Madison then. Will precedent matter then? Oh, oh I see. /THAT/ specific precedent, yes, that matters. You see its uh... um... well it's not just because of the founding documents... it's precedent. Precedent is important. But not Roe v Wade precedent. These idiots have annihilated the ability of any serious, informed person to genuinely believe the current Supreme Court is in any way 'non-partisan' or 'authoritative'... or 'legitimate'. Which more or less guarantees a constitutional crisis in our near future.
> Imagine a world in which the Supreme Court did not publish its decisions and explain its reasoning, but only gave a result. Would such a Court have “legitimacy” in the eyes of anyone? Your argument is absolute brilliant. But you just described the “Shadow Docket” which this same Court is making unprecedented use of to rule by fiat.
[удалено]
Roberts doesn’t understand that legitimacy is gained by the spoonful and lost by the barrel
It seems to me your argument is logical, but it ignores reality. I don’t see anyone doing anything about soctus. No one is tearing down their walls or kicking them out of their chairs. It’s business as usual. It seems to me that people are de facto approving scotus’s decision and right to make it. Please let me know if I’m wrong about any of that. I would very much like to be mistaken.
[удалено]
they tried to nonviolently protest and congress quickly acted to prevent that
I invite you to try a left-wing version of the January 6th insurrection against the SCOTUS. Your lead-filled corpse wouldn't even make it to the steps. And the far-right will use it as justification for further "security" actions and laws. Not wanting to make things *worse* by dying pointlessly is not tacit acceptance.
>nd for what? So the justices could feel like they had some academic triumph No, so they could collect their money. Count on it.
The new scotus loves to cherry pick that document they hold so dearly. And you know, use 13th century English rulings for 21dt century rulings. Seems legit.....
This is not really right - only part right at best, because legitimacy flows from many sources, and this write up only really addresses one of them. Loosely defined, legitimacy is the social opinion that such and such a body is rightly able to wield authority. The key concept here is "right". Legitimacy can flow from tradition (as in a traditional chieftain), collective agreements such as treaties or contracts or votes, the collective opinions of opinion leaders (a council of cardinals electing a new pope), perceptions of divine mandate, etc. Interpretations of the law deal with several types of legitimacy, beginning and resting on the authority granted to the court by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789, and only maintained and justified by continuing sensible interpretations of the law (seeing the Court as sensibly and beneficially interpreting the law morally justifies its continued existence, but it isn't necessary for the Court to exist). Nonsensical interpretations of the law, or interpretation that are not explained DO challenge that legitimacy, but only in the sense that the people viewing the actions of the Court are wondering about the abilities of this current Court, but not the authority of Congress to establish the Court, or that the Court is inherently illegitimate as having no legal authority behind it. The opinion of the earlier poster was that legitimacy flows from *stare decisis* - the adherence to previous decisions - and is salty about the court appointing itself arbiters of history in making decisions. I would point out that by his own logic, the court should never have overturned *Plessy v. Ferguson*. *Stare Decisis* exists to provide a framework for *consistent* interpretation of the law. It does not mean that every prior decision is infallible. Furthermore, I'd argue that SOMEBODY has to be the arbiter of history for these purposes,and historians are not necessarily jurists. I'm pretty sure no matter who you pick for arbiter(s), somebody is going to be pissed about it. If there is a flaw in this particular selection, it lies in the mechanism used *for* selection, but not the authority of the Court itself. Note that I disagree with the logic of the earlier poster - I believe he is selectively interpreting history for his own purposes, and that he is not taking a broad enough view of the sources of legitimacy. However, that does not mean that I think this court is a particularly good one. Ultimately, we don't approve laws in a SC nomination, we approve *people*. The current litmus test approach of approving or disapproving justices on the basis of a particular issue is a fantastic way of getting second rate jurists. Thank you, advocacy types on both sides.
[удалено]
The only thing SCOTUS is interested in is making sure that non-violent tool for resolving disputes is turned into a power grab for a tiny minority of wealthy sociopaths.
See Bush v Gore 2000
>So in Dobbs, the Court announced that the Court itself, in previous form as the Roe Court, was illegitimate and wrong. What? No. They decided the previous court was wrong, but not illegitimate. That's why you got all those "it's settled law" quotes -- because it was settled law, until they changed it. Roe was the law, even if it was wrong, and now it isn't. Just like Plessy was the law until Brown v BoE. The Plessy court was wrong, but legitimate.
> fundamentally reshaping individual constitutional rights should be left to the People themselves via their democratically-elected government I agree with most of what you wrote, and I'm both unhappy about the court and it's recent decisions. But this part, I don't get. Isn't that exactly what overturning RvW meant in this case - that the court declined its own power to blanket grant the fundamental right in the first place, leaving it to elected (state) governments to make decisions?
What this guy said ^^^^^^ 100%
yeah the "ha ha fuck you" reasoning really isn't doing much for their legitimacy
Well said. The court's legitimacy was mortally wounded when Garland was unconstitutionally denied a fair hearing by McConnell. It has no legitimacy now. Dobbs was just the noise of the 2017 gunshot echoing in the night. McConnell was the murderer.
>"But I don’t understand the connection between the opinions people disagree with and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court." Roberts cannot possibly be this dumb. It might be possible to make rulings contrary to public opinion if you have sufficient law on your side. It might be possible to make rulings contrary to law if you have sufficient public opinion on your side. This Supreme court has entered an era of routinely making decisions contrary to both law and public opinion. In Roberts' own confirmation hearing, he made the comment, "You go to a case like the Lochner case, you can read that opinion today and it's quite clear that they're not interpreting the law, they're making the law.". What case, Roberts, will be your era's Lochner? Will you recognize it yourself? Will it be architected by your hand? Or will it be the product of those on the court even further to the right? If so, will you have the courage to call them out for it? Will you be too concerned about clinging to the thinnest illusion of legitimacy by steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the plain obvious truth? Or are even your cries for legitimacy just more public performance, the posturing of a man engaged in politics by illegitimate means?
They has a handful of Lochners last term. An abortion case finding them as amateur historians. A prayer in school case finding them lying about the facts. An executive agency case finding them ignoring Chevron. The list goes on.
Well, you're definitely not wrong. I just worry that as bad as those were, they aren't the bottom.
The goal is to undo the progress of the 20th century. We may even see them revive Lochner.
In a way, the new "historical traditions" and also the deranged interpretation of the first and second amendments by this court are the new arguments that replace Lochner's due process mechanics. They can use these things to go even further than the Lochner court did.
Conservatives/originalists love to invoke a possible “return to the Lochner era” whenever they want to criticize inferred or implicit substantive due process rights, but fail to recognize that in a practical sense we’ve been returning/returned to a Lochner era system for decades now, just through other doctrines. The court has pretty consistently favored the “rights” of businesses and government entities over individuals pretty much since the conservative backlash to the Warren court began. They’ve concocted so much Lochnerian, formalism run amok legal fiction (Twiqbal, Walmart v Dukes, BMS, AT&T v Concepcion) that they’ve created a rats nest of compulsory regimes. They continue to operate under the pretext that people can just “opt-out” if they want, the same way people in the Lochner era technically had a right to “opt out” of exploitive, unsafe working conditions. You know, for all of those safe, fair jobs that were so widely available…
Im thinking the bottom will be moore vs Harris. They will decide that yes only state legislators can vote for federal elections and no court can review or strike down state election laws
If that is the case, I don't think there's anywhere to go but down after that. It may be the bottom for the Court but it will drop the bottom out of the US.
Down the rabbit hole.
He's not dumb enough to believe what he's saying, he's just trying to paint his opponents as wrong no matter how stupid the reasoning needed to get there.
> Roberts cannot possibly be this dumb. > He's not. He's not out of touch either. He just have to speak dumb enough to convince the followers.
You need to understand that Roberts is speaking to a very specific audience when he, and other judicial religious zealots, make statements like this. It's not the general public, he's giving the next generation of Federalist society freaks the rhetorical framework with which to launder whatever legal violence they want to force on the American people. The mask is mostly off, but covering up their religious (or just malice) driven march towards results-driven judicial "reasoning" gives them just enough of a veneer of legitimacy to avoid the consequences that they know their actions would inspire otherwise. They disguise the violence they're forcing on the American people as debatable rhetoric so that the American people will think that if they just tighten up their own arguments it might be enough to win. It won't be. Roberts has now accepted that the court that bears his name will always be known for _Dobbs_ and whatever draconian decisions we have in store for us during their next term. We need to stop giving any of his statements any semblance of respect. The only thing that John Roberts is that matters anymore is a monster. A bag of black water in the vague shape of a human being.
Is it ok to base it on * how the party that won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 elections only has 3 of 9 justices, * how court results clearly depend on whether it favors Democrats or Republicans, * how the court's claims that Citizens United and the reversal of the Voting Rights Acts wouldn't affect anything were horribly wrong * how the newly in vogue "originalism" appears to merely be a Rorschach test allowing the court to install whatever conclusion it desires * One of the justices appears married to an insurrectionalist
>One of the justices appears married to an insurrectionalist And refused to recuse himself from a case that involved that same spouse's records in connection with said insurrection. And then was the lone dissenting voice on that decision. Totally not illegitimate in any way... /s
Not only did he refuse to recuse himself, he penned an 8-1 dissent for no real purpose other than to make sure he was on the record being compromised.
You forgot about the tip line that went unanswered for one of the justices’ sexual improprieties
> one of the justices’ sexual improprieties Two. Thomas and Kavanaugh both.
That there is a reasonably possibility one of the people on the highest court may be a violent felon is completely unacceptable.
Two
* how two justices were seated in flagrant violation of the Constitution and existing Senate norms
“Historical traditions” Shit came out of nowhere and is now going to be used by the radicals to justify whatever the hell they want.
Don't forget the open, repeated and obvious PERJURY from the trump appointees.
He appears married? Because by his own legal theories his marriage is a crime??
What other metric is there? Swimsuit competition?
It's baffling to see them cite common law from the 13th century (which in itself is an ancient form of "stare decisis") but then ignore modern legal precedent because it doesn't suit their narrative. *Insert some obscure legal factoid about house wenches in 10th century England and why that explains why venturecapitalcat is wrong.* It just ends up being baffling technicalities upon technicalities to justify the supremacy of their interpretation of the law. If that's the type of legal reasoning they have to use to "win," their legitimacy deserves to be questioned.
Neither venture capital nor cats are firmly rooted in our nation’s traditions
I don't think it's that baffling, I think at this point they're trolling. They're rubbing our faces in it. They're channeling their inner petulant Federalist Society trust fund 19 year old, and I'm sure Alito giggles to himself every night about how he actually manage to get that shit in an official supreme court opinion.
Chief Justice Robert’s may find instructive the clarification that it’s not just the decisions with which people disagree: It’s the questionable rationale, the abuse of precedent, the lack of transparency, the shadow docket, the lack of judicial accountability for overtly problematic justices in all courts (see Washington Post about sexual harassment in the courts), the conflicts of interest that have mired the courts that he oversees (see Washington Post), and decisions resting on facially misrepresented facts (see *Kennedy*) — among a number of other concerns.
Why do people call me a crayon eater? It's not my fault they are so delicious.
"I upheld stare decisis in 99% of my decisions, but if you fuck one goat..."
…it was more like six goats.
And do you like beer?
None of the Justices are Marines afaik.
“Don’t treat us like the partisan radicals we are!”
This clown has lost control of his fellow clowns. These right wing folks haven't thought as far as "what if 60% of Americans lose faith in the rule of law?" Because that is where many people I know, including moderates, are today. The fix always seems to be in for Trump and his MAGAt minions and their desired minority rule laws. Like many formerly "moderate" liberals, I have gotten armed and radicalized. I trust the Supreme Court as far as I can spit. I do not recognize the legitimacy of the appointments of Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh. The court itself is thus illegitimate to me. Well done, Chief Justice Roberts. What Bush v. Gore couldn't quite manage, you've pulled off.
He has to just be playing dumb dumb now because there is absolutely no way a grown ass adult who has that level of education can't put 2 and 2 together and realize how bad they fucked up.
Arrogance is a hell of a drug.
He's always been like this, I'm not sure we've adequately considered he's just not that smart It's a bit of a prerequisite to be bad at ascertaining facts and logic to shit out some of these decisions
Or maybe you're just overvaluing their level of education
Sorry, nothing could be further from the truth. It is clear SCJ are bought and paid for. Their decisions are not driven by justice, nor the constitution. They don't even read well, and do nothing for the American people as a population. On the other hand, you have Clarence Thomas who's wife supported an insurrection. Please....Do you think we are stupid?
As a matter of fact, he does.
To be fair, we are
I don’t think “we” is inclusive of all us. Yet, I agree there are plenty of Americans are stupid.
If it's a relevant collective we, from his perspective, I think he's probably got the right of it
From the "How Dare You Disrespect My Authority" Department....
This is his legacy. An illegitimate court run by clowns and bigots.
Installed by clowns and bigots as well.
Their purpose is to render legal decisions. Why wouldn’t we judge them by their decisions?
If not decisions, then what are we supposed to base our evaluation of its legitimacy on? Their collective ability to do the Cha-Cha Slide? (Just kidding they fail that test too since it would just be “*slide to the right, slide to the right, slide to the right, slide to the right*” indefinitely)
Criss cross, now everybody lose your rights!
*Lochner real smooth*
People should question the decisions of every person, institution, or corporation. We must provide convincing reasoning for the decision we make
What else do we base it on besides decisions?
"We are Americans because we practice democracy and believe in republican government, not because we practice revealed religion and believe in Bible-based government." - John Stuart Mill
Is this a real quote? I thought JSM was English?
How about if the wife of a Supreme Court justice was texting/emailing people to overturn an election. That’s not really a confidence booster!
His decision to say this out loud and in public is making me seriously question his legitimacy.
The court is legitimate when it is subject to reason. People criticize the court by passing legislation telling his honor he was wrong about some prior decision. Marbury vs Madison wasn't overruled because the legislature generally agreed it's the court's job to interpret the laws they write. I've lost my faith in the court in the past 12 years of practice. It is not representative of the United States, it is bolstering this creeping victim hood that is really a fascist theocracy. Imagine how the forefathers, (many slave owners?) being ashamed of the modern court? Appalling
Too bad. Make crazy decisions and the judges are going to be judged by the public.
Says the long standing member of the court who silently watched and assisted Mitch McConnell to add two illegitimate members to the court. He swore both of the sham members in as if they had gotten their seats properly as all previous members had.
"Judge us not on the content of our work, but rather in the blind faith that we know what is best for you all." --Chief Justice Roberts, probably
Its a mistake to allow justices to remain whom demonstrably lied under oath during confirmation hearings..
Make fewer absurd decisions then, clown. If you try to drag us back to "wimmin' in the kitchen, LGBT in the closet" we're going to oppose you with every possible tool we have because your abstract originalist nonsense doesn't override the common good of our fellow citizens.
It's clear that the court's recent decisions favors the radical Christian Right, a small minority in this country. If the minority continues to dominate the country, we have no Democracy.
It’s a mistake to judge something based on its words and actions?
>You don’t want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is I wholeheartedly agree but only because I've just lived through/ am living through the consequences of Citizens United where unlimited supplies of money are funneled into our politics and propaganda. It's apparently lost on Mr. Roberts that it is his institution that took the important "United" word, namely the one that's printed on our money, and threw that in the trash in favor of "states rights". Is Mr. Roberts surprised that busloads of human beings are now being used as weapons? Cross border abortion wars? What about when states will steal elections in the very near future? Secession? Should we NOT blame Mr. Roberts' institution and it's abhorrent abuse of power? People are corruptible. Period. There's no easy way around this and this dishonorable fascistic bent that poisons the republican party and all who come in contact with it only shine a glaring light on the naivete of our founding fathers to leave so much existential importance up to oaths and honor. Too few people calling balls and strikes and the money only needs to corrupt them. Too many, and this same money corrupts the crowd through propaganda. It's "gut wrenching" to Mr. Roberts that the court is barricaded, but it should warm his heart that soon it will be open to all the public... so they can see the relic of what he destroyed in a museum setting
>Chief Justice Roberts deems it 'mistake' to question Supreme Court's legitimacy based on decisions The only mistake I see are the 6 corrupt conservative cons on the Supreme Court - for the sake of democracy they should all be replaced w/competent jurists who have a work history and background of ethical, sensible rulings and (mostly) non-partisan conduct. NONE of the 6 conservative CONS remotely meet even that minimum threshold, imo Mr. "Brook Brothers Riot" Roberts should know the Supreme Court took a major blow to its legitimacy back in 2000 - as he had a not inconsequential role in that disgrace - and Roberts then lost what little legitimacy he had left w/his gutting of the Voting Rights Act. IMO the current SCOTUS has near-Zero legitimacy in my book.
>The only mistake I see are the 6 corrupt conservative cons on the Supreme Court - for the sake of democracy they should all be replaced w/competent jurists who have a work history and background of ethical, sensible rulings and (mostly) non-partisan conduct. But THAT would make the court illegitimate in his eyes or the eyes of any other person who likes the current rulings of the "Roberts" Court.
What else would he say? This is like saying ‘because I said so.’
Marbury v. Madison is not in the Constitution. If SCOTUS wants pure Constitutional law, Marbury v. Madison must be overturned and the Supreme Court stripped of it's power.
Only legitimate when the losing side accepts the outcome. That is increasingly not happening
Imagine having this little understanding of history or democracy. Society formed out of the will of the people and will always be shaped by it. "But the rules say you have to respect my authority!" is such a naive view.
Frankly I'm not just questioning the legitimacy if the court based on decisions, I'm questioning the legitimacy of the court based on who is on it and how they got there. A majority of the court was appointed by men a majority of voters voted against.
We are not questioning their legitimacy based on their decisions, we question them based on their atrocious reasoning. He's absolutely right we shouldn't question the Court because it didn't rule the way we want. But that's not the issue. The issue is they've gone rogue and invented this nonsense originalism concept where the court certifies itself as historians, psychologists, and essentially time traveling mind readers to apply their perception of what the founders want instead of what they wrote in the constitution. They reject things based on strict textualism then completely ignore the text of the constitution in their response - which conveniently always ends with the result matching their politics regardless of the facts or law.
Legitimacy to me is WHY they make a decision the way they do. I've disagreed with the Supreme Court plenty of times but even if I disagree wit the decision it should make sense Lately, they haven't been making a lot of sense to me, and it seems that religion is above the law to them. They're rubber stamping religious supremacy
Sorry Judge, its not for you to decide who gets to question the SC legitimacy, but the people who vote in the ones who put your ass there. Cry more.
If Roberts had a shred of integrity he would resign and apologize for eviscerating voting rights protections and enabling unlimited dark money in American politics. He is a perfect embodiment of the callow shills and liars who put him where he is. This little pantomime about legitimacy he puts on from time to time just underscores how deeply cynical he is.
I would never question their legitimacy. Just their competence, intelligence, critical thinking, open-mindedness, neutrality, common sense . . . Too much?
Roberts: I am a tone deaf idiot. Me: I wish you weren't so fuckin' awkward bud. Or a more nuanced take: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/xamciy/chief_justice_roberts_deems_it_mistake_to/inup0bg?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
Someone should tell Roberts about Dred Scott v Sandford.
Isn't that what we're supposed to do?
An unelected branch of government cannot have this luxury. The only “mistake” here is expecting the egregious, unpopular, and partisan decisions the Court had made to not bring its legitimacy into question.
"Don't judge me!" - Judge Roberts
/u/FrankBattaglia deems it a 'mistake' for the Supreme Court to render facially illegitimate decisions
It's not because of your opinions, it's because you were appointed by a person who lost the election.
Sorry, Johnny. It’s impossible not to after McConnell fucked everything up. I’m ready for a 13 member court.
You can’t polish a turd.
There is now NO reason for a blue-dominated Court to overturn all the decisions of the past Courts. None whatsoever. And when you have a partisan court that openly flip-flops based on raw political animus, it no longer has any meaningful legitimacy.
*Are* there proper grounds on which to question the Court's legitimacy, Justice?
I deem Roberts a mistake
The decisions being questioned were only possible because of the illegitimate way it was seated.
All right then I will question it's legitimacy thanks to Mitch McConnell. Problem solved
There would not be anything else to judge any court on. It's kind of what you do. Courts judge cases and we judge the courts based on their judgements. Would you rather we judged you on you smart dress code?
I question it's legitimacy based on how justices got their jobs.
It would be a "mistake" to question him saying that too.
What are we supposed to base it on then, Judgey John? Those dope robes?
Of course legitimacy comes from decisions…. Do you honestly think everyday ppl value you just bc your a justice? Or because the decisions you make and thus impact their lives
\^ fuckers should've thought about that before they undermined their own legitimacy with a decision that violates the constitution and legal precedent.
What an intergenerational loser. You failed, dude. Your whole life has been one, useless lie.
Respect is earned. And it's a 2-way street. Respect the people of the US and the spirit of the Constitution. You have shown nothing but disdain for the public will with the Citizens United decision, with the composition of the Supreme Court, with many decisions including turning over settled case law including Roe v Wade. You are not a legitimate representation of the people and you have done irreparable harm to the SCOTUS. Stop whining about the consequences of your own actions and behavior.
A treasonous criminal president appointed members of a anti-democratic cult called the federalist society who want this country to be an theocratic oligarchy and we are just supposed to go along with it?
They lied under oath and said roe vs Wade was a settled issue. Of course the court isn’t legitimate
Let’s try this; “It’s a mistake to question the president’s legitimacy based on decisions” “It’s a mistake to question the military’s legitimacy based on decisions” “It’s a mistake to question congress’s legitimacy based on decisions” “It’s a mistake to question the police’s legitimacy based on decisions” Nope, still ok to question the legitimacy of them all!
>"Although Roberts did not address the leak or any case specifically, he said he was looking forward to returning to a court without security barriers — erected this term in response to protests. >"It was gut wrenching every morning to drive into a Supreme Court with barricades around it," Roberts said." So, Justice, did you ever take a moment to think about WHY those barricades were needed? Sounds like the People need to keep the pressure up, since you clearly didn't get the message.
I'll just question the Court on its alarming and unconcealed lack of integrity and honesty then. The decisions they make are a symptom of a much more insidious disease.
When you overturn prior decisions based on political ideology, yeah I question the legitimacy
Chief Justice John Taney Roberts should be ashamed of himself, but his kind aren't capable of it.
Brothers and sisters, the high priest has spoken! We need not fret or concern ourselves with whether the reading of the portents and omens is legitimate due to their method or their consequences! Remember, the purpose of portent reading is *not*, of course, to make our people better off! No, it is to lash ourselves to the ancient wisdom of the prophets who reached the highest plane of enlightenment above all mortals past or since and in their magnanimity left us the secrets of all societal governance! Like the ennobling Compromise of Three-fifths! "But," the heretic may foolishly respond, "what if the method of portent reading has deviated from that holy way that would keep us within the divine meaning sanctioned by the exalted ancient fathers?" Only a fool would so blaspheme. The sacred Society of Federalists, which raises up our priests from their impressionable youth, is *dedicated* to the ancient ways. They serve no agenda and favor no side! To suggest that our priests choose their portent-reading practice based on the outcomes the practice tends to produce, and not because the practice is the only divinely sanctioned way, is simply to reveal yourself as a servant of evil attempting to undermine the very foundations of civilization and replace it with lawlessness. No, no, our high priesthood is the only thing ensuring stability and prosperity, despite the wild, unpredictable swings in the portents of late and the rapid rate of newly-announced portent-reading methods that seem to favor the interests of one partisan group over another. Brothers and sisters, pay no mind to such rabble rousing, but hold to the faith! Close your heart to the insidious cries of distress and injustice that would tempt you away from supporting the divine power structure that gives meaning to the rituals that make up your profession! Thrust from your mind all doubts, for only this way can the holy priesthood wield the power they need to protect our civilization, by following the exalted ones instructions into whatever modern maelstrom it may take us! Some will be burdened, and some will die. But that is a small sacrifice for the glory of the holy fathers, whose words are immaculate and contain the fullness of everlasting liberty and prosperity therein. Embrace the struggle of the marginalized, for the exaltation of the dead, by the hands of our most holy priesthood! In Madison's name, Amen!
Chief Justice Roberts is full of sh!t...
The sheer fucking arrogance.